George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I will yield, but before I do, I want to make a statement. After that I would be happy to answer a question. This is the fundamental difference. On .08, as Governor, as a candidate, I thought it was a great idea. The reason all the States have the .08 but for one is because you are withholding or the Federal Government is saying we are going to withhold some of your highway funds for it. It is blackmail. It is extortion, raising the beer- drinking age in Virginia because of that. Ronald Reagan is my hero. He is the one who motivated me to get into organized politics. I think he was wrong to do that. I think for people who are 18, the States can make these decisions. They can enter into binding contracts. They can vote for President, vote for Members here, and they can also theoretically be drafted to fight and potentially die for their country. I think the people of the States can make those decisions. On this issue, in particular, the .08, I am with you, I am for it. I think that should be done at the State level. The mandatory seatbelt law and primary enforcement is something that when I held Mr. Jefferson's seat in the House of Delegates I voted against. So if I have voted against it and was opposed to this nannyism when I was in the State legislature, I know the air is more rarified up here, but I still have some of those senses. I certainly do not want to do something in the Senate I would not want to do as a legislator and, moreover, tell the folks in other States to do it. With that, I yield to the junior Senator from New York.

Mr. ALLEN. I would say for the record, Mr. President, no, the senior Senator from Virginia has given me guidance but never in a sense of being an officious nanny whatsoever.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to my colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, it is similar in some respects. Let me make a few points. Talking about cost--local rescue squads, volunteer fire departments, and so forth, having to work accidents-- well, it is not as if the State legislatures do not care about these costs because, after all, if it is State police or if it is local supervisors or whoever it may be, they all care about that as well. And that is the proper forum for this because I think the people in the States do care just as much if not more and are much more in tune with what they would like to do in their laws than the Federal Government. The difference on .08--I did allude to it, and it is a good, probative question--the .08 blood-alcohol level for drunk driving, or driving while under the influence of alcohol, is something that I advocated when you were alongside of me campaigning for Governor in 1993. There was opposition to that. But I thought, as well as you do, that at .08 most people are going to be impaired and, therefore, a danger, in that case to themselves, but what I cared most about was the danger to others. In the case of somebody's lap, whether they are wearing a seatbelt or not, if it is a danger, it is only a slight increase in danger to themselves. It is not a danger to others on the road. Whereas, for somebody who is a drunk driver, clearly it is going to be a danger to themselves, but what might they do to an innocent pedestrian, somebody else driving on the road? So even .08, while we had it--and so the dictate and the extortion, whatever term you want to use on .08, it did not matter to Virginia because we had already passed that law, imagine that, without the wisdom of Washington. We actually did that. The point is, in this case, unlike a drunk driver, not wearing a seatbelt is not a danger to others, while a drunk driver is. And that is a distinction I would make. But in either case, just personally--this is just philosophical to me, and maybe it is because of my experience serving in the State legislature and as Governor--I think the people in the States are perfectly capable of making these judgments themselves. And to restrict or take away funds unless you follow the dictates of the Federal Government in something that while desirable is not really the proper jurisdiction of the Federal Government, to me, is just wrong.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to the junior Senator from New York-- her question was do I agree that not wearing seatbelts causes 30,000 deaths? No. Not wearing them doesn't cause death; death is caused when somebody is drunk or impaired by drugs, not paying attention, or speeding, or taking a turn too quickly. The sole fact of not wearing a seatbelt is not the proximate cause of the death. Whereas, if you look at the statistics, impaired driving is clearly the No. 1 cause of fatalities, and not just of drivers but also those who are not. Having said that, I do think it is a good idea to wear seatbelts. I have no objection to it. I think airbags are a great invention. There were those in previous years wanting to dictate to the manufacturers to put airbags on their cars. People realized that airbags could save lives. Whether somebody is wearing a seatbelt or not, of course, the maximum safety is the airbag. Car manufacturers are using that accessory as a selling point rather than a Government dictate. But not wearing a seatbelt does not proximately cause death.

Mr. ALLEN. Of course not.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I do yield the floor. Amendment No. 2311 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the outsourcing of American jobs)

Mr. ALLEN. If I may, I would much rather be debating this issue with your colleague on this, the junior Senator from New York. It would be much more enjoyable than with someone who is such a great partner. I yield back.

Mr. ALLEN. Understood. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. ALLEN. I surely will.

Mr. ALLEN. I wouldn't allow it, and you wouldn't either.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I imagine the manager of this measure, the chairman, Senator Inhofe, may want to speak on this. I will just say I very much enjoyed listening to the arguments of my esteemed senior colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. I was just thinking, this is the sort of argument that ought to be made in Mr. Jefferson's capital. If you look at all the rest of the States, folks care about kids. There are laws requiring children under certain weights and ages to be in car seats and they do have to be buckled up. Here you have the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, according to the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota that don't have primary enforcement of seatbelt laws, they probably have secondary enforcement laws like Virginia. Additionally, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska. Those folks, if they want to pass these laws, I guarantee, none of them have anyone as articulate and persuasive and passionate and caring about this issue and America than John Warner. I am not suggesting the Senator join a State legislature. But those folks can come to these conclusions. They can look at their statistics. They also could make these decisions. In addition to that, to say States that are sending Federal gas tax money up to Washington are going to get less back unless they comply with an issue that is their purview, I think is wrong. It is an honest disagreement, a difference in philosophy. I very much respect and appreciate Senator Warner's true and sincere beliefs. I still respect him and always will. This will probably be a close vote. It is just to me a place we should not be dictating a course to the States in matters that are rightfully their prerogative.

Mr. ALLEN. It has failed for many years.

Mr. ALLEN. I would be happy to.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, for his remarks on the economy. I want to get into the pending amendment. At that point, I hope the managers will allow me to continue and talk about this seatbelt amendment. I commend my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard, for his comments. Tax cuts are working because individuals, families, and small businesses have greater freedom. They are investing. More jobs are being created, and there is more economic activity which makes our country more competitive. Our tax laws and regulatory policies--and any policy we have in this country--needs to ensure that there is more investment and more jobs in America. We ought not ruin opportunities for businesses to provide their employees with broad-based stock options. The People's Republic of China has technology companies that promote themselves because they have stock options for their employees. I hope in America we would not deny that opportunity. Internet taxes matter. We need not be imposing higher taxes on access to the Internet, particularly broadband. Energy is important. We need to have energy sufficiency and reliance, domestic production of natural gas or clean coal or oil, as well as advancements in new technology. And this highway bill is a part of that, it is also for infrastructure, jobs, and the movement of people to and from work with less congestion. I hope we will get to it. In the midst of this, we have an amendment. I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for my colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. His service to Virginia and to our Nation makes him a true American hero, in my view, and a great patriot. It is an honor to serve and partner with him. However, I am compelled to voice my opposition to an amendment that Senator Hillary Clinton and he have proposed to the underlying highway bill. The amendment that is before us, while certainly well- intentioned, should not, in my view, be the purview of this body or the Federal Government. The proponents argue that it is a good idea to wear seatbelts. In most cases, that is true. But there is really no assertion nor persuasive reason that has been proffered for Federal jurisdiction in this case. This certainly is not interstate commerce. Without a Federal interest, I think this cause or this claim or this idea ought to be dismissed in the Senate and remanded to the place where this ought to be adjudicated; that is, in the State legislatures because this is clearly a State interest. Beyond the lack of Federal jurisdiction, I have long detested nannyism that emanates from the Federal Government. I believe legislating common sense is an ill-fated course that will result in countless mandates and directives imposed upon the American people. No one in this body or around the country will argue that wearing a seatbelt is not a good idea. I wear them. I make sure my kids are buckled up. Of course, there are laws that have to do with children, but we are dealing with adults with this amendment. The point is whether or not the Federal Government or any government ought to be legislating or coercing sensible behavior. There will be all sorts of ideas where people will say: Gosh, it is in government's interest--not just seatbelts but, gosh, you should not be drinking hot coffee, you should not be talking on the cell phone, and you should not be changing the radio station or trying to find your Alan Jackson CD while driving. You should not be eating a hamburger while driving. You ought not be looking at your Blackberry and replying while driving. If there are going to be laws in this area--which I do not advocate-- it ought to be at the State level. Any of these examples I cited, obviously, endanger not only the driver but others. I thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, for his great leadership on the highway bill, and also his support for the principles I will continue to espouse to my colleagues on this mandatory seatbelt dictate amendment. I don't think this body wishes to dictate mandates on a lot of things because they make good sense. Let's look at law enforcement. I am sure there are some in law enforcement officers who like this idea of primary enforcement rather than secondary enforcement. In my view, law enforcement has a lot of important things to do, especially on safety of the highways. For example, there is a driver on the road without his or her seatbelt on but otherwise driving the speed limit in their lane safely, not impaired by drugs or alcohol; meanwhile, law enforcement stops them, pulls them over, and it takes 20 to 30 minutes for them to cite someone who undoubtedly will be miffed by such pestering. At the same time, down the same stretch of highway there could be a drug-impaired or alcohol-impaired driver weaving down the road undetected because the sheriff's deputy or the State trooper or the police officer is bothering someone who is otherwise driving safely. This amendment clearly tramples on the rights, the prerogatives, and the jurisdiction that have long been the purview of the people in the States. I don't believe mandates such as this initiative should come from any level of government. I was not for it as a State legislator or a Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, if governments are to be making a decision on this, it ought to be the State governments, not the U.S. Congress. The logical regression is that somebody could make an argument that people riding motorcycles are safer wearing helmets than not having helmets. There are many States that do not have helmet laws. It is the right of the people of South Dakota, or whatever State it may be, to have such helmet laws. The logic, of course, would be that the Federal Government could say all motorcycle riders have to wear helmets. In my view, our State legislatures provide a much closer representation of the views, the beliefs, and the will of the people in their respective constituencies, in their respective States all across our country. I am a firm believer that the laws of a particular State do reflect the principles and the views of its constituents and how they want to be governed. I hope my colleagues realize that many States do not have primary seatbelt laws. In fact, 30 States do not. While New York and New Jersey have primary enforcement, as do Maryland, Delaware, and California, there are 30 States, from Maine to Virginia, to South Carolina, to Florida, to Missouri, to Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Alaska, that do not. If such seatbelt laws are desired, the citizens in these States will elect representatives and State legislators who share this belief and who want to pass such a petty law. A minority of the States currently have the primary enforcement of seatbelt laws. I am sure it has been considered by State legislatures. It has been considered in Virginia for many years and debated as to the benefits of primary seatbelt statutes. Never, though, has it been agreed to be the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact, just last week the Virginia House of Delegates Transportation Committee tabled a measure that would have established a primary seatbelt law. Again, I am often puzzled by the scant Federal nexus on this issue. Is it that State roads go through other States? For the Federal Government to usurp State authority on an issue that does not concern the safety of the public but only the individual in my view is Federal meddling at its worst, especially when coupled with repressive extortion. When these issues are decided by State legislatures, all sorts of interesting things come up. There is naturally the libertarian streak, which my good friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I will discuss from time to time. That is an issue. But, interestingly, some other issues will come up. Last year in the debate in the Virginia General Assembly and the House of Delegates, Delegate Ken Melvin of Portsmouth, VA, voiced his opposition to a primary seatbelt law, stating: I know what happens when you are stopped by police, as a black man in this country and in Virginia, in particular. He explained how his son was harassed and pulled over numerous times for no apparent reason. So we end up with concerns of driving and persecution of people on account of their race. That is something to be decided in a State legislature. I am not sure if every State has it. I am sure most places in Virginia do not have this problem. Nevertheless, that is the discussion that was held on the floor of Mr. Jefferson's capitol in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Legislature and the legislatures of other States, from Alaska to Florida and South Carolina, can discuss the impact of this on the people of their States rather than have the Congress hold hostage desperately needed funds for highways to make them comply with the one- size-fits-all edict and agenda. Proponents will say this initiative provides States with supposed options. The reality is, by withholding highway funding, it is a de facto mandate. I do not believe in blackmailing the people of the 30 States, or any State with primary seatbelt laws for funding that their citizens have paid into the Federal highway trust fund. I have watched this debate very closely on the reauthorization. We have heard the vast majority of Senators, thank goodness, laud the potential of this measure to create thousands of jobs in their States and obviously alleviating aggravating congestion in metropolitan and suburban areas of our country. If that is the case, why should we, as a Federal Government, withhold any portion of this funding, given its great prospects for jobs and also its ability to improve the quality of life? Our Commonwealth of Virginia would lose tens of millions of dollars until enacting a primary seatbelt law or convincing the federal government ninety percent of Virginians are wearing seatbelts. Given the congestion in Hampton Roads, northern Virginia, and the number of Virginians seeking employment, I cannot support a measure that would reduce the amount of benefits available to Virginia. I commend my friend and partner, Senator Warner, on what he has been able to do over many years in getting Virginia's share of Federal dollars up from 79 cents to 80 cents to 90 cents and, in this measure, up to 95 cents. But Virginia is already paying in more than we get back. In addition, punishing the people of Virginia by withholding until they are coerced in the legislature into passing a primary enforcement of a seatbelt bill, to me, is wrong. I know what they will have to do; they will have to pass it, just as they had to pass in all the States raising the beer drinking age and the .08 blood alcohol content maximum. The latter did not have an impact in Virginia because as Governor I advocated .08 and we enacted into law. States need the funds for roads and transit. It is contrary to the best interests of Virginia to force primary seatbelt mandates in exchange for funds. We ought to be making the most funding available for highways rather than returning less of Virginia gasoline taxes to them until they pass such an officious measure as this. There are more effective ways to convince Americans to wear seatbelts when driving or traveling in an automobile or pickup truck. But meddling into every aspect of our citizens' lives, usurping the authority of the people through their legislatures, holding hostage infrastructure funds that are so needed, to me, is not the appropriate method to realize these salutary goals. As I said, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Warner. I know he cares passionately about this issue, but I don't believe this is in the best interests of the Commonwealth of Virginia or 49 other States. In my view, it continues a dangerous precedent that allows the Federal Government to further encroach on an issue traditionally determined by the States by withholding these infrastructure funds. This is simply not an issue for the Senate. It is not an issue for Congress to decide. It is clearly properly reserved to the people in the States. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment, tabling it, however it comes before the Senate. I certainly do not want to play the role of ``father knows best'' or senatorial nanny to coerce or reverse the decisions clearly made by my State's legislature or, for that matter, 29 other States. Let there be no mistake. I strongly support greater seatbelt usage. I believe it can save lives on our roads and highways. But I do not support that usage coming as a result of a dictate and blackmail from ``Federales'' here in Washington, DC. Let's not meddle with the laps of drivers driving safely down the road as adults. Let's trust free people to make these decisions and their State legislatures as to what they think the laws and enforcement ought to be, whether it is helmet laws or whether it is seatbelt laws. Let's also pass this otherwise beneficial bill that will help reduce congestion and help create jobs in our country.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, for the past 54 years, Taiwan and the United States have been allies in the international arena, democratic partners and friends. In times of need and turmoil, both countries have always come to each other's aid. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Taiwan immediately offered help to Americans through the U.S. Government. In recent months, Taiwan has offered humanitarian aid to post-war Iraq. Today Taiwan is being threatened. Taiwan's planned referendum on March 20, 2004 has been called a move toward Taiwan independence. Some say it will push Taiwan to the ``abyss of war.'' Such rhetoric is a distortion of Taiwan's true intentions. In the face of an overwhelming military threat against Taiwan, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's peace referendum asks Taiwan voters whether they should buy more anti-missile weapons if the People's Republic of China refuses to withdraw its 496 missiles targeted at Taiwan and whether Taiwan should open up talks with the People's Republic of China about issues of peace. Taiwan's democratically elected president, President Chen, has made it clear that he continues to hold to the ``five no's'' of his inauguration speech, including the promise not to hold a plebiscite on the issue of Taiwanese independence. The referendum merely aims to avoid war, free its people from fear and maintain the status quo. Taiwan, our ally and friend, is a democracy. Its people have every right to hold their referendum this March 20. Taiwan's referendum law is a basic democratic right that the United States should support rather than denigrate. The future of Taiwan must be determined peacefully, with the express consent of the people of Taiwan. Since its establishment, the United States has been the foremost champion of liberty and democracy in the world. We can, therefore, not afford to tell the people of Taiwan not to hold a referendum. There can be no double standard when it comes to exercising democracy.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to recognize Russell C. Schools of Capron, VA, upon his retirement this year from the Virginia Peanut Growers Association. Throughout his long career as a peanut farmer, Russell C. Schools has made numerous contributions to his field of work, dedicating his time and efforts to improve and promote the peanut industry, specifically in Virginia. Perhaps his most impressive achievement was the 34 years he spent as the executive secretary of the Virginia Peanut Association. Recently, Mr. Schools was inducted into the American Peanut Council's Peanut Hall of Fame, a fitting tribute to his outstanding career in the peanut industry. Mr. President, I commend Russell C. Schools for the hard work and dedication that he has demonstrated throughout his distinguished career. He is a great Virginian and a great American and I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize the outstanding work of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets at the University of Virginia who participated in a 24-hour vigil on September 15-16, 2003 in honor of National POW/MIA Remembrance Day. The POW/MIA Vigil specifically honors those men and women who defended our nation and never returned with a 24-hour, tri-service honor ceremony. The ROTC cadets at the University of Virginia started their POW/MIA vigils in 2000 when Air Force cadet Elizabeth McGraw served as Arnold Air Society Deputy Commander. Subsequent vigils were commanded by Cadet Christopher Tulip in 2001, Cadet Tara Graul in 2002, and Cadet Jeremy Porto in 2003. This year's Vigil planning committee included Cadets James Hayne, Joshua Becker, Alina Sullivan, Dan Barton, and Nic Skirpan. U.S. Air Force Colonel John C. Vrba, commander of AFROTC Detachment 890 at Virginia, supervised the ceremony, which began with a solemn precision drill performance by members of the AFROTC Drill Team: Cadets Suzanne Hahl, Jacklyn Noveras, Brandon Bert, Timothy Farwell, and James Hayne. Air Force and Army Cadets, and Navy Midshipmen from the three ROTC detachments then marched in solemn 15 minute ``honor shifts'' guarding the American flag which was displayed prominently on the back wall of the University of Virginia's Amphitheater. One of the MIAs that these young Cadets honored was U.S. Army Captain Humbert Roque ``Rocky'' Versace, a 1959 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. On July 8, 2002, I had the distinct honor of being present at the White House for the posthumous awarding of the Medal of Honor by President George W. Bush for Rocky's conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while a captive of the Viet Cong from October 29, 1965, until he was executed on or about September 26, 1965. His captors took his life after they had given up trying to break Rocky's indomitable will to resist interrogation and indoctrination, his unshakable faith in God, and his steadfast trust in his country and his fellow prisoners. When I visited the White House last year for Captain Versace's Medal of Honor ceremony, I was among many of Captain Versace's West Point classmates and family members. One of those classmates was John Gurr, who worked tirelessly to get approval for the creation of the Captain Rocky Versace Memorial Plaza and Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the Captain's boyhood neighborhood in the Del Ray section of Alexandria. At the conclusion of this year's POW/MIA Vigil, Mr. Gurr made a powerful speech to the UVA ROTC cadets on the great history of honor by Vietnam POWs, which produced five Medal of Honor recipients, and made Rocky Versace the only Army POW to receive the Medal of Honor for his heroism while in captivity during the Vietnam War. Mr. President, I'd like to enter John Gurr's inspiring words as an extension of my remarks: I am indeed grateful for this opportunity to speak for my comrades in arms and I would thank you for this opportunity were it not axiomatic in the military profession that you never thank a soldier for doing his duty. You can commend him or her, and I herewith commend wholeheartedly the ROTC cadet corps of the University of Virginia for the vigil you have mounted in memory of our nation's POWs and MIAs. It was your duty to do so, and you did it well. I will share with you up front that I came to this amphitheater last night at around 0200 to witness your vigil for myself. I stood in the deep background for over a half an hour and watched your sentinels, and I thought about what message I will carry to you today. Here it is in a nutshell, young men and women: the heroic legacies of our fighting men and women, most certainly including those men who suffered so terribly yet endured with honor in the torture chambers of the Vietnamese communist forces, the heroic legacies of those predecessors are soon to pass to you. Be ready, because they are sacred. Duty, Honor, Country. Duty--be professionally ready, do your duty well; do something extra. Honor--guard and cherish your personal honor. Country--stand ready to ever defend this great democracy, which is a unique bastion in a dangerous world. A bit of background on the POW situation as it developed and ended in Vietnam. There were 771 Americans captured or interned in the Vietnam War, far, far fewer than in any of our major interventions since World War I. 113 of them-- almost 15%--died in captivity. The vast majority of POWs were officers, most of them aviators shot down in the north, and the vast majority of them were held in North Vietnam. There were some 19 such prison camps, where a rough total of some 550 men were held. In the north, brutal tortures were the rule, and the death rate was about 5%. In the much smaller and equally scattered prison camps in South Vietnam and Laos, hunger and disease and brutality were common, but torture was much less systematic. Even so, the death rate in the southern camps was about 20%--four times higher than in the north where food and medical care and the support of fellow prisoners made the chances of survival better. As to the purpose of torture in the northern camps, let me quote from Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale, who suffered 7\1/2\ years in captivity there and was the ranking man in the camps. I quote from his ``Afterword'' in the famed book Honor Bound which details the experiences of American POWs in Southeast Asia: ``I was the only wing commander in that long war to lead prisoner resistance and therefore the natural target for Major Bui--`The Cat'--Commissar of the North Vietnamese prison camps. The business of the Commissar was extortion. He had to continually intimidate--to break--a number of POWs so that he had Americans at the ready to parade before press conferences for foreign `dignitaries' (often Americans from the anti-war movement) and to exploit for propaganda statements favorable to the communist agenda. Our job was to hold out as long as we could, to make it difficult for The Cat to exploit us. To do this, he hired experienced `torture guards' who in 40 minutes or so, with bars and ropes, could reduce a self-respecting American officer to a sobbing wreck.'' Admiral Stockdale and his fellow prisoners in the north early decided that their goal was to resist as best they could and return to the U.S. with honor. I say again, ``with honor.'' Thus the title of the book from which I quote, ``Honor Bound.'' The American POWs were ``Honor Bound.'' Under circumstances that will draw a tear if you understand. Admiral Stockdale was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor upon his return. Duty well done, Admiral! Well done! As to the prisoners in South Vietnam, I will speak with an indirect credibility of the experience of a West Point classmate of mine, Captain ``Rocky'' Versace. I will speak with a passion because ``Rocky'' was a friend of mine, and he, too, won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his resistance and leadership as a prisoner of war. A difference is that Versace was executed for his stubborn, and often even argumentative and aggressive resistance to the communist effort to break him for propaganda purposes. The Medal of Honor was presented posthumously, to ``Rocky's'' family in the White House on July 8, 2002, in the presence of 250 people which included 89 of his West Point classmates. As we said to ourselves at the time, ``We came for you `Rocky.' We were late, but we came.'' ``Rocky'' Versace's story is one of a young man of exceptional physical endurance and truly extraordinary mental toughness. He was deeply religious, and he had come to love and admire the South Vietnamese people for whom and alongside whom he had fought for almost 18 months before he was severely wounded in battle and captured in October 1963. For the first five months of his captivity in the Delta of South Vietnam he was held in a small camp with only two other American prisoners. Successive teams of Viet Cong indoctrinators sought to break ``Rocky,'' to get him to make statements rejecting the South Vietnamese effort to resist a communist takeover, and they tried to get him to make recordings or quick movies opposing America's intervention on behalf of the South Vietnamese forces. Fluent in Vietnamese and French, he argued so credibly with his indoctrinators that they had to switch to English because they began to notice that the enlisted communist guards were starting to nod their heads in agreement with some of ``Rocky's'' rebuttals. ``Rocky's'' fellow prisoners heard him say in one of the indoctrination sessions ``You can make me come here, and you can make me listen, but frankly I don't believe a word you say and you can go to hell.'' On another occasion they heard him say ``I know that if I am true to myself and to my God, that something better awaits in the hereafter. So you might as well kill me now.'' ``Rocky'' attempted escape four times and was captured, beaten and leg-ironed in a stifling bamboo cage after each such unsuccessful attempt. Only three weeks after his capture and on his first attempt, he had to drag himself through the jungle on his belly because he had taken three rounds in his right leg in the battle in which he'd been captured, and he could not walk. As a captain and the ranking man in his POW camp, he sought to encourage his somewhat separated fellow prisoners by singing ``God Bless America'' and other popular or patriotic songs, frequently inserting a stray word or two to communicate with his men. ``Rocky'' set the example, and he took the heat off his fellow prisoners. After five months, ``Rocky'' was deemed to be an incorrigible propaganda prospect, and he was taken from the camp and held in isolation. That's where he was held for the last 18 months of his 23-month captivity. Alone, emaciated by hunger and disease, his head swollen and yellow from jaundice. There were occasional reports during that time from villagers who said that ``Rocky'' was frequently led or dragged through their villages as a sad example of what the American fighting man looked like. Even so, they said that ``Rocky'' sometimes interrupted the propaganda diatribes in the village centers, refuting and embarrassing his captors in his fluent Vietnamese. He was beaten, and one report said that, as he went down, he smiled. ``Rocky'' Versace was a winner. He was executed in September 1965, ending not only his life but his imminent plan to leave the Army and return to South Vietnam as a Maryknoll missionary. He had been accepted to become a priest-candidate at the Maryknoll Order in Tarrytown, NY. But he never made it there. Thus ended the life of a decent man, a courageous and unbreakable soldier, and now the only Army man to get the Medal of Honor for conduct as a POW during the Vietnam War. And now let's turn to you. What you've just heard is a part of your legacy. You must not let it down. Last night there was just one old soldier sitting there in the back of this amphitheater, watching you, watching your vigil, and witnessing the changing of the guard. In a few short months or years, your turn will come to bear the mantle of Duty, Honor, Country. And there will be a ghostly phalanx of old soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who will always, I repeat ``always,'' be watching you. You cannot fall short of the standard that has been set. I appreciate this opportunity to speak for my past and present comrades, we commend you for doing your duty so well, and my last words to you are: Be ready. Be ready. Mr. President, I would like to commend John Gurr and the ROTC cadets at the University of Virginia for their dedicated service to our Nation and for their work to honor those like Captain Rocky Versace who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of America and its ideals. I wish them Godspeed as they stand strong for freedom.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to recognize the Bridgewater Junior League All-Stars for their third place finish in the Junior League World Series this summer. Throughout their incredible run, the Bridgewater Junior Leaguers were a source of great pride for their local community. The team of talented 13-and 14-year-olds cruised through the early rounds of the tournament, eventually making it all the way to the finals of the Junior League World Series. This team of winners should be applauded for their exciting play throughout the tournament. The 12 outstanding players on this young team have truly promising futures in front of them. Congratulations to the Bridgewater All-Stars: Alex Arey, Andrew Armstrong, Daniel Bowman, Alex Crank, Brandon Craun, Kyle Craun, Sam Groseclose, Luke Long, Carl McIntyre, Tyler Milstead, Joshua Tutwiler and Josh Wright, their manager, Don Tutwiler, and coaches Sherrill Wright and Bill Groseclose. They have made Bridgewater and the Commonwealth of Virginia proud of their accomplishments.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize Alfred C. Anderson, who ends 28 years of service as the treasurer for Roanoke County in January 2004. Mr. Anderson is the longest serving treasurer in the history of Roanoke County, first being elected in 1971. He served until 1975 and then resumed the elected post in 1979. He has been Roanoke County's treasurer ever since. As treasurer, Mr. Anderson helped modernize the office, allowing for online payments and computer record keeping. He has distinguished himself and his office, becoming the president of the Treasurer's Association of Virginia in 1986 President of the National Association of County Treasurers and Finance Officers and receiving the award for National Treasurer of the Year in 1996, County Republican Official of the Year in 1998 and the Commonwealth's Award in 1997. Mr. Anderson is a community leader, serving as past chairman of the Roanoke United Methodist Church, past president of the Dogwood Festival and Vinton Lions Club. He currently serves as Chairman of the 6th District Republican party and as a board member on the Blue Ridge Education and Training Council. Alfred Anderson is a graduate of East Tennessee State University. He and his wife Ann live in Vinton, VA and have two children. Mr. Anderson has left an indelible mark on his office and his community. I congratulate him and wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues the well-coordinated and rapid response of the good people from the United States Small Business Administration in the days and weeks that have followed the disaster caused by Hurricane Isabel. Virginia is still recovering from this terrible natural disaster. In Virginia, initial assessments indicate that 1,062 homes were destroyed; over 8,800 homes sustained major damage; 1.8 million customers lost electricity of varying duration from a day to over a week; there were 28 deaths in the Commonwealth; crop losses are in the tens of millions; and total damages are in the billions to homes, businesses, transportation and other infrastructure facilities. Our Commonwealth was devastated and the residents of Virginia, as they always do, have come together to help neighbors repair damages, to help families find housing and to console those who lost loved ones in their time of grief. Soon after the storm cut across Virginia, and the economic impact began to be felt, I contacted Small Business Administration leaders, seeking to bring direct assistance to these affected businesses. On September 22, SBA representatives responded quickly. My colleague, John Warner, and I toured the significant damage to many flooded small businesses in Old Town Alexandria, VA. The quick response, expertise and enthusiasm of the SBA leaders gave hope to small business owners who were upset at the great losses and burdened by damage to their infrastructure, uncertainty when to reopen, loss of inventory, very little capital and lost incomes. The people saw that there was help, that it was not just their own sweat, worry and furrowed brows, but that the SBA was there to assist them directly. Herb Mitchell, associate administrator for the Office of Disaster Assistance at the SBA, Anthony Bedell, associate administrator for the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Sue Hensley, associate administrator for the Office of Communications and Public Liaison and their leader Melanie Sabelhaus, Deputy Administrator for the SBA walked with us while we viewed the damage first hand, talking with business owners who were able to ask specific questions and receive answers and solutions. On the spot, Melanie Sabelhaus of the SBA also set up an onsite Business Disaster Recovery Center with the local Chamber of Commerce in Old Town Alexandria to help business owners who suffered loss. Our top priority was to get small businesses dried out, disinfected and back in business, and I am proud that this team effort has proceeded successfully. By getting our boots in the mud, we were able to get a direct, human response to promptly assist distressed small business owners, who are the backbone of the American economy. Later the same week they answered my call and came with me again to southeastern Virginia, to places such as Burwell's Bay in Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Wakefield in Sussex County. There we witnessed the terrible devastation. People there not only experienced great trauma, difficulty and loss, they were still without power, looking to the SBA for assistance, which was able to provide human, personal attention to help get them up and running again. Small businesses such as Cameron Chemical and the Marina Restaurant, whose owners we were able to talk with, which were forced to close their businesses indefinitely, and which together employ dozens of hard-working Virginians were given hands-on assistance by the SBA to reopen in a timely manner. Low interest loans, business disruption assistance from the SBA visibly cheered their faces with hope and gratitude. Traveling with me again was Melanie Sabelhaus, along with Anne Bradbury, assistant administrator for congressional affairs and Becky Brantley, assistant administrator for disaster assistance. I commend the Small Business Administration's leadership, under the direction of Administrator Hector Barreto, Jr., and the entire team at the SBA. They responded to each of my requests and demonstrated knowledge, experience and genuine care by helping small businesses get clean, dry, rebuilt and open again for customers and employees. Their enthusiastic outreach truly gave hope to many owners and employees. And, as a U.S. Senator, one can often try to get Federal agencies to help people. From my perspective, the Small Business Administration is demonstrably one of the very best lead teams in the Federal Government. On behalf of Virginians, I thank them for their special care. Many small entrepreneurs are open for business due to our efforts. It is a satisfying job well done.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to Mr. Harkin, the Senator from Iowa. This question gets into the issue we are talking about, which is jobs. Taxes cuts help create more jobs for small businesses, especially the most recent tax cuts for accelerated depreciation. Regulations from the Federal Government also can reduce choice and cost jobs. For example, we believe free people and families ought to be able to keep working. The proposal would harm those choices and jobs. For example, the proposal which has strong Democrat support would increase the cost of purchasing pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans. America is dominant in the manufacturing of minivans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Many people are choosing to buy them for the safety of their families. I ask the Senator from Iowa: How many SUV jobs would have been lost had your side prevailed?

Mr. ALLEN. I am talking about the CAFE standards.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for joining with us in this debate on the most important issue we have facing us in the Senate and in our country. That is: How can we work to make sure we have the best policies for more investment and more job creation? The reality is, right now things are getting better. They need to get better, though, than they are currently. Nevertheless, the facts are clear. Job growth is up by 126,000 in October. When my colleagues talk about the last 20 years, last month we had an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent. That is the best in 20 years. The Republicans' point of view, I would say to my colleagues, is that we want to make sure every American, regardless of their race, their gender, their ethnicity, or their religious beliefs, has the opportunity to compete and succeed. That means our tax policies have to be conducive to investment. Regulations need to be based on sound science, not political science. We also need to make sure the people of our country, in our States, have the capabilities and the knowledge to get the good jobs in the future. We also need to have security. When we see people in communities worried about crime or worried about terrorism, those are adverse impacts, on confidence and investment and therefore job creation. We have seen the adverse impacts of 9/11, particularly in the travel and tourism industry. I know as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia what matters to businesses when they are looking to invest. They look at what is the cost of doing business, what is the tax rate, what is the cost of workers compensation. Ours are low in Virginia because we keep lawyers out of workers compensation. We get the money to the person who is injured so he or she can get back to work. Unemployment insurance taxes matter. The fact that we have a right to work law, which gives individuals the right, if they so desire, not to join a union as a condition of work, that helps attract business. Health insurance matters as well. In a variety of areas, we have found Virginia ended up with much more job growth, more investment. It was called the Silicon Dominion because of the investment, because of having taxes competitively low, prompt permitting, reasonable regulations, and also investment in security and also in the capabilities of our students for high academic standards. The Democrats talk about all of these Presidents. Interesting. Richard Nixon was elected after President Johnson. If one wants to call Jimmy Carter their second best President, with the malaise and the high interest rates, the high unemployment, and the high inflation. People put in Ronald Reagan to help revive this economy and make us stronger as well as, of course, keep our peace through strength. I find it interesting my good friend from Iowa talks about, oh, the Republicans somehow want to imperil Social Security and gets off on these tangents on privatization. Of course the Democrats care about Social Security because in 1993 they not only taxed all families and all small businesses and every taxpayer, they even taxed Social Security benefits. When given the opportunity most recently on a measure introduced by Senator Bunning of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, virtually every Democrat voted against that effort to repeal the tax on Social Security benefits. The fact is, we are making good progress. We need to keep moving forward. We have ideas, as Republicans, in a variety of ways that we can make sure the American economy can compete internationally, can help create more jobs and greater opportunity. Indeed, we want to make health care costs more affordable and predictable, reduce the burden of lawsuits on our economy, whether it is asbestos reform or class action reform, make sure we have an affordable, reliable energy supply, streamline regulations, open new markets for American products, and also make sure there is confidence in investment in this country by making sure the tax reductions are permanent. I will close with the words of Mr. Jefferson who said that the Government should restrain men from injuring one another but otherwise leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouths of labor the bread they have earned. That remains the sum of good government today.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I don't think SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks cause toxic waste sites. I will agree with one thing, and I think most people in America will agree: The comments of the Senator about all of these SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks driving around in northern Virginia are driving to nowhere; most people in America would probably consider DC nowhere. Cost in lives: 4,500 deaths would occur each year if they had increased these standards. Vehicle costs would have gone up $2,500 for cars and $2,750 for SUVs and pickup trucks. The United Auto Workers said this proposal would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. We have a Ford assembly plant in Virginia. And I would hate to see a 20-percent loss there and have to go to those 2,200 employees and say 1 out of every 10 of you is going to lose a job because the nannies up in Washington want to take away your choice to drive a vehicle that people would want for their families and for their safety.

Mr. ALLEN. I am not sure what the Senator from North Dakota is actually talking about. What we are talking about and what we are trying to do is make sure the United States of America is a place that is conducive to do business. It is a shame and it is aggravating to all of us when a company goes overseas. It takes jobs away. One of the reasons they will move away is the cost of doing business. We are in competition with other countries. It is our view what we ought to be doing is target assistance to businesses to invest in this country. That is why we tripled the amount that could be expensed for small businesses, allowed also that if people buy new equipment, new technology, to be more productive and more competitive, they could write it off more quickly. These initiatives, the depreciation, the writeoffs, have actually had a beneficial impact on our economy, not only those businesses that are investing in this country, most of which are small businesses that create about 75 percent of the jobs, but those that fabricate or manufacture whatever equipment or manufacturing efforts they have, whoever is assembling it, whoever is transporting it, packaging it, or selling it. That is all beneficial. Our point of view is we need to make sure America has tax laws and the regulatory policies that allow America to compete so companies do not have any incentives or need to move overseas. I will later bring up a question which I think will be very helpful for getting those profits back into this country. Republicans will join with Democrats saying we do not like to see companies go overseas, but we have positive, constructive solutions and ideas to keep those jobs here, so companies do not feel they have to go to another country with less regulations and lower taxes for them to provide for themselves and their shareholders.